I'm not trying to be rude, I'm see on what other people think. I do like the Unova Pokemon, but some don't even look like Pokemon. Klink and it's evos are indeed one, they are gears and other fused ones, it reminds me of Magnemite, except that they look like more like the steel cyborg pokemon. Gothita and it's evos are indeed one as well. Weird goth pokemon, but Reuniclus and it's evolutionary line is more Pokemon like and that they are stronger and better. And I do find Vanillite and it's evos cute and fun to use, but they are 2 ice cream scoops with a icey ice cream cone that came to life. So what do you think of which of the Unova Pokemon don't even look like a regular Pokemon? Share me your opinions. I don't hate the Pokemon, I'm just saying.

While I personally prefer Gen I and think some of the some new Pokémon look retarded, I can not deny most of them look different, not "like" Pokémon… from Gen I, II, III or IV. That's good because on the point they just copy Pokémon and just change the eyes or the color, THAT would be uncreative. So, still creative untill now. Wandering garbarage is stupid? So is wandering dirt. We are just more used to the wandering dirt.

There is no definition of what a Pokemon should look like. You are probably comparing the fifth generation Pokemon with the previous four generations of Pokemon. I have nothing negative to say about the fifth generation Pokemon honestly I think it was a great idea that the Pokemon company made a gear Pokemon and Ice Cream Pokemon-you know switch it up a bit.

Wandering garbarage is stupid? So is wandering dirt. We are just more used to the wandering dirt.

...XD

Just a note you guys, if there's a Pokemon you don't like the design of, or like the design of, then post about it in likes/dislikes (and yet by now most of these threads have turned into that discussion already).

Either way, I kinda agree with the thread creator. At first there was something about the designs of generation 5 Pokemon that didn't match up with what I remembered for past generations, which I can't quite put my finger on. While when I saw Shimama I thought "oh hey it looks like Girafarig...OH" (I am aware it is weird) and then that was the point where I saw the connection between generation 5 and past generation Pokemon. It's just past generations rehashed basically, imo.

__________________

we'll make our mark; show the world what we can do
❤
we're not flawless; we're a work in progress

I moderate Second Generation and Fifth Generation.
I am SMT Senior Staff and a Daily Headline Writer.

I think we can all see here that this is a flawed question. On the flip side, I do see what you are trying to say. The designs of the 5th Gen Pokémon are considerably different from past generations, there's no getting away from that.

HOWEVER - look at it from the developer's point of view. Both Generation III and IV were essentially re-hashes of the more popular Gen I and II eras and they were just inventing more of the same. As a result the series' original creative flare was lost and it became bland; if we had to rank the Generations on an exciting/boring scale I think on balance Gen IV was the worst (or at least the most dull).

This was being reflected in sales and general interest. Pokémon needed to re-invent itself so it didn't go the way of other things from it's era. Seriously, what else do you remember from the late 90's that still as contemporary? Pokémon would just have become yet another bland marketing ploy like Moshi Monsters or Furbies; it wouldn't have stuck on this long.

What do I think of the move? I think it's fantastic. :) More creativity is what drives everything forwards and makes things better. They still haven't captured me quite as much as Gen I and II, but I already prefer it over Gen IV (though Gen III I quite like).

I call Druddigon the Lego Dragon because of how it looks. I like it anyway but it wouldn't immediately strike me as a Pokemon.

You've all seen this image, right? That is the difference between older and newer generations. Newer monsters have more 'pointless' features; spikes, stripes, fluffy bits, etc. What's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but there is generally a clear distinction between early and recent generations.

I call Druddigon the Lego Dragon because of how it looks. I like it anyway but it wouldn't immediately strike me as a Pokemon.

You've all seen this image, right? That is the difference between older and newer generations. Newer monsters have more 'pointless' features; spikes, stripes, fluffy bits, etc. What's good or bad is a matter of opinion, but there is generally a clear distinction between early and recent generations.

People's speculation on "what x Pokémon would look like if it was made in the year y" besides, the first game were made for a system that could only display sprites with four shades of grey and a total size of about half those in Black and White - let alone the increasingly detailed 3D representations in Pokédex 3D or the console games.

Of course they have more room to include further detail and a greater range of colours in designs now.

There is technically a fault in your question, however, I do understand what you're trying to say.

Now to my opinion. The pokemon of the newer generations don't exactly fit in with the older generations, I'll admit. They are different, that's apparent. I can't even think of any explanation for the inanimate object pokemon. Facepalm, anyone? But I don't see how someone can say exactly what pokemon are supposed to look like. They are what they are. To me, as long as they are apart of the franchise, they are officially pokemon. I grew up playing the old generations of pokemon so I see where you're going with this. I think that they're just different, and they're supposed to be. Depending on your point of view, that fact may be a good or bad thing. I'm assuming you don't like the difference in them. All I can say is that I come to a neutral standing with the difference.

Even if they don't look like pokemon, they'll always be pokemon.

__________________

Friend Code: 5171 - 9762 - 4892
Message me, let's exchange codes! (:

"Peace under an illusion is not true peace. It's only meaningful if the real world manages to accomplish it." - Gaara ♥

75% of Pokemon gamers use cheats and specially made codes to make their pokemon battle-worthy. If you are one of the 25% percent that level their Pokemon up legally, put this in your signature.

People's speculation on "what x Pokémon would look like if it was made in the year y" besides, the first game were made for a system that could only display sprites with four shades of grey and a total size of about half those in Black and White - let alone the increasingly detailed 3D representations in Pokédex 3D or the console games.

Of course they have more room to include further detail and a greater range of colours in designs now.

I really agree with this one. If the tiny details of never generations would be implemented in older games (let's say the first generation), many of those details would go lost since the resolution of the games is not quite what it was now. If I remember correctly, Yellow could be played on GBC and would show Charizard in Orange and Venusaur in Green. Completely in one colour with white highlights. Venusaur has more detail like that (pink, yellow, white, blue green, green, etc etc), but the GB at that time was only capable of implementing a so much detail. Original Pokémon were designed to fit in the original GB games, with simple colour schemes. Gradually when the generations passed, the first generation got more detail spritewise.... but can you imagine the complaints when the 1st gen would be completely "updated" to the new system?

I love the 5th generation, and I'm kind of glad the Pokémon are getting more detail in their designs. See it as an evolving artist: from stick figures to realism. the Stick figures get fleshed out, but will always retain something of what made them those stick figures, otherwise they won't be representative of those original stick figures anymore. If that makes sense.

Pokémon is evolving, but it'll always be Pokémon. There's just something in the style that sets Pokémon appart from other monster series.

So you live your whole life in the middle of Kansas with a small town of a few hundred people. Everything you understand around you, and for this example lets assume you didn't have internet access.
Now throw yourself into the heart of china. Do the trees look like trees? Do the flowers look like flowers? Do the people look like people? Everything looks totally different than anything else you've ever seen. You're in an exotic world with very close to 0 genetic drift. So of course things aren't going to look the same. If you went from Germany to Mexico and wanted everything to look similar, that just seems like either an ignorance of how regional differences work, or just not accepting it.

I agree there not very pokemony, but i think thats the biggest problem with the game.

There are far to many of the same pokemons being redone which is upsetting. I'd much rather have a potato, vampire, PC pokemon rather then what they did which is have another magikarp called feebas (doesnt even look diferent)

I agree there not very pokemony, but i think thats the biggest problem with the game.

There are far to many of the same pokemons being redone which is upsetting. I'd much rather have a potato, vampire, PC pokemon rather then what they did which is have another magikarp called feebas (doesnt even look diferent)

And purrlion like meowth etc there so many that to much the same !!

You can't have it both ways though. You can have original ones that don't look like Pokemon, or ones that rip off other Pokemon but do look like Pokemon.

The PokéCommunity

Meta

Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.